The trope of the “starving artist” has cast a long shadow over the arts world, shaping not only how society views artists but also how artists view themselves. It paints a romantic image of a creative soul driven by passion, sacrificing all material comforts for their work. Yet beneath this romanticism lies a troubling reality: this myth reinforces systemic undervaluation of artists, creates unhealthy competition, and perpetuates inequities in the art world. To understand how this narrative came to dominate, and its ongoing impact, we must delve into its historical origins and paradoxical consequences.
Romanticism and the Creation of the Starving Artist
The “starving artist” as we know it emerged during the Romantic era in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. This period redefined the role of the artist, shifting from a Renaissance view of artists as skilled craftsmen serving patrons to one of solitary geniuses creating for their own sake. Pierre Bourdieu, in The Rules of Art, describes this shift as the creation of the “autonomous artist,” who exists outside market structures and is driven by “pure art.” Bourdieu argues, “The denial of the ‘economic’ and the exaltation of the ‘pure’ are the very conditions for the success of the most commercial enterprises.” In other words, the myth of disinterest in money paradoxically became a marketing tool.
This trope was immortalized in works like Henri Murger’s Scènes de la Vie de Bohème (1849), which tells the story of impoverished artists living in Paris. Murger’s characters romanticize their struggle, viewing poverty as a necessary condition for creative genius. This narrative became deeply influential, spawning adaptations such as Puccini’s opera La Bohème. Yet, as historian Martha Woodmansee argues in The Author, Art, and the Market, this glorification of struggle obscured the systemic realities of a rapidly changing art market. “The Romantic era,” she writes, “not only reshaped the figure of the artist but also mystified the economic structures that demanded their financial precarity.”
The Paradox: Competition and Scarcity
The starving artist myth imposes a damaging paradox on the artist community. On one hand, artists are told their work should transcend material concerns, prioritizing passion and authenticity over financial success. On the other, they are forced to compete within a market system where resources are limited, and success often depends on self-promotion and visibility.
As sociologist Hans Abbing observes in Why Are Artists Poor?, the myth of the starving artist creates a self-perpetuating cycle. “Artists are taught that their poverty is a sign of integrity,” Abbing writes, “but this same belief ensures they are systematically underpaid and undervalued.” The result is a scarcity mindset that pits artists against one another, forcing them to compete for grants, gallery representation, and public attention. Instead of fostering community, this myth creates a zero-sum game where collaboration becomes secondary to individual survival.
This competition is compounded by what Sarah Thornton describes in Seven Days in the Art World as the “economy of prestige.” Thornton writes, “In the art world, visibility often functions as currency, and artists are expected to produce a public persona that aligns with their work.” The starving artist trope thus becomes a double-edged sword: artists must appear self-sacrificing to maintain credibility while simultaneously navigating the competitive demands of capitalism.
The Role of Institutions and Labor Devaluation
The starving artist myth also perpetuates a systemic undervaluation of artistic labor. It frames creativity as a gift rather than a skill developed through training and effort, justifying the chronic underpayment of artists. Economist David Throsby critiques this in Economics and Culture, arguing, “The romanticized notion of the artist as a gifted outsider obscures the economic realities of their profession, reinforcing the idea that art should exist outside of market structures.”
Moreover, this narrative often justifies exploitative practices by institutions. For example, unpaid internships, low artist fees, and “exposure” opportunities are framed as rites of passage, while artists are expected to be grateful for the chance to show their work. Thornton underscores this dynamic, writing, “Artists often perform unpaid labor to gain access to opportunities, yet the rewards of these opportunities rarely outweigh the costs.”
Toward a Collective Solution
To challenge the starving artist myth, we must reframe how society values artists and their labor. First, education is key. Arts institutions should teach not only technical skills but also business practices such as pricing work, negotiating contracts, and advocating for fair pay. Initiatives like Working Artists and the Greater Economy (W.A.G.E.) set important precedents by certifying institutions that commit to fair compensation for artists.
Additionally, artists must resist the scarcity mindset by building networks of mutual aid and collaboration. As Michelle Millar Fisher, curator and advocate for labor equity in the arts, argues, “Artists have the power to collectively advocate for systemic change by refusing to accept the premise that poverty equals authenticity.”
Finally, the broader public must recognize that art is labor, not just passion. By supporting policies that provide public funding for the arts and holding institutions accountable for equitable practices, we can begin to dismantle the structures that perpetuate the starving artist myth.
The starving artist myth, born of Romantic ideals and perpetuated by systemic inequities, continues to harm artists by devaluing their labor and fostering competition. Yet it is not immutable. By understanding its historical roots and recognizing its paradoxical consequences, we can begin to rewrite this narrative. Supporting artists means valuing their work as both meaningful and professional—an essential contribution to society that deserves respect and fair compensation.
Works Cited
• Abbing, Hans. Why Are Artists Poor? The Exceptional Economy of the Arts. Amsterdam University Press, 2002.
• Balzac, Honoré de. The Unknown Masterpiece. 1831.
• Bourdieu, Pierre. The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. Stanford University Press, 1996.
• Murger, Henri. Scènes de la Vie de Bohème. 1849.
• Thornton, Sarah. Seven Days in the Art World. Granta Books, 2008.
• Throsby, David. Economics and Culture. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
• Woodmansee, Martha. The Author, Art, and the Market: Rereading the History of Aesthetics. Columbia University Press, 1994.
adjusted!
コメント